Character Development in Animation
- Thread starter Sophiaaa
- Start date
?Well as me and Greg said people only finish development when they die so any ending without characters dying means there's unfinished development.
Why would I be happy? I was just trying to find out what you meant because I still don't get it. I've never even heard the term 'unfinished development' before.
What I think you're getting at is the same problem that serial stories have and they can get cut off before their time. But I?d better to have some character development than none at all.
Why would I be happy? I was just trying to find out what you meant because I still don't get it. I've never even heard the term 'unfinished development' before.
What I think you're getting at is the same problem that serial stories have and they can get cut off before their time. But I?d better to have some character development than none at all.
The only toon from the 80's that had somewhat c.d. was Thundercats. Liono seemed very naive in the early episodes and the stories gravitated to being about his journey to leadership. Much like goliath in a way in gargoyles.
My fav animated series has to be Mighty Max on this. He surely was not the same character by the end of that show.
My fav animated series has to be Mighty Max on this. He surely was not the same character by the end of that show.
I like good characters. They don't always have to "develop" for me to continue to like them. If by character development we mean learning and revealing more about a certain character, then yes, I like that too. But it's likely that if I dislike a character, then I will continue to dislike them no matter how much "development" they go through.
And sometimes, certain developments may not be to my personal liking. Daria's struggles in the last two seasons of her show were at times quite painful to watch. At some points, I actually liked Quinn more than Daria in Season five and the two movies, which would have been totally inconceivable to me when the series began.
I also don't like it when a certain aspect of a character is hinted at, which was never expected previously. But then, this is never picked up on again in the rest of the series. Like the final scene in the Kim Possible episode "Stop Team Go".
And sometimes, certain developments may not be to my personal liking. Daria's struggles in the last two seasons of her show were at times quite painful to watch. At some points, I actually liked Quinn more than Daria in Season five and the two movies, which would have been totally inconceivable to me when the series began.
I also don't like it when a certain aspect of a character is hinted at, which was never expected previously. But then, this is never picked up on again in the rest of the series. Like the final scene in the Kim Possible episode "Stop Team Go".
trill dill
New member
That's a misguided view on it. If a show's entire run is about a character coming to terms with the death of someone, and it ends with them accepting it and moving on with their life, then I'd call that finished character development. Could he do something 30 years later in his life completely unrelated in some other character development? I suppose, but the show wasn't about that, it was showcasing that specific plotline/event. Unfinished would be if it was cancelled 26 episodes in with a ton of cliffhangers, or the writers never bothered to finish that storyline.
Sorry, I was writing that from a cell phone. Let me elaborate.
It's an accepted trope of action storytelling that the "hero" is a constant while the stories are built around enemies and/or supporting characters. Development of the character is given in his or her backstory, which explains how they became who they are. Most of their flaws are dealt with in this origin story.
To use Greg's example of Optimus Prime, both the animated and G1 version had a similar origin. They both started out young and naive, but their interactions with Megatron and exposure to evil made them into a mature leader. Greg is technically wrong to call Optimus Prime undeveloped.
However, in G1, his development was limited to a single episode (the flashbacks in "War Dawn"). We know Orion Pax had a live-changing encounter with Megatron that resulted in his near death and caused him to become Optimus Prime. But by the end of this single story, he is already the godlike Prime we know from other episodes.
TF:Animated told a similar story, but did so over the course of the entire series. This is what I meant about "stretching out" the origin story. Gargoyles was similar to TF:A. Weisman didn't have them wake up and adjust to modern times immediately in the first episode (unlike the Autobots in G1).
Does that make sense? I'm tired tonight.
However, we are focusing way too much on the development of main characters and multi-episode arcs. "Character development" can occur in a single episode. Take any episode of Batman: The Animated Series, even episodes where the villain was never shown again. The villain was fleshed out and given logical motivations in the course of one episode, with Batman as a mere device to resolve the plot. "Criminal Minds" does this in live-action. There is real character development present, even without arcs.
In this sense, "GI Joe" had a lot of character development (especially in season 2). But the storylines almost never carried over from one episode to the next, and sometimes the characters who got the most exposition were hardly even shown again.
It's a shame GI Joe got cut short .... say what you will about "GI Joe: The Movie", but there was an obvious arc planned for Lt. Falcon (al la Rodimus Prime), and it would've been great to see how he adjusted to filling his brother's boots. Unfortunately, DIC ruined our chances of ever seeing that happen.
It's an accepted trope of action storytelling that the "hero" is a constant while the stories are built around enemies and/or supporting characters. Development of the character is given in his or her backstory, which explains how they became who they are. Most of their flaws are dealt with in this origin story.
To use Greg's example of Optimus Prime, both the animated and G1 version had a similar origin. They both started out young and naive, but their interactions with Megatron and exposure to evil made them into a mature leader. Greg is technically wrong to call Optimus Prime undeveloped.
However, in G1, his development was limited to a single episode (the flashbacks in "War Dawn"). We know Orion Pax had a live-changing encounter with Megatron that resulted in his near death and caused him to become Optimus Prime. But by the end of this single story, he is already the godlike Prime we know from other episodes.
TF:Animated told a similar story, but did so over the course of the entire series. This is what I meant about "stretching out" the origin story. Gargoyles was similar to TF:A. Weisman didn't have them wake up and adjust to modern times immediately in the first episode (unlike the Autobots in G1).
Does that make sense? I'm tired tonight.
However, we are focusing way too much on the development of main characters and multi-episode arcs. "Character development" can occur in a single episode. Take any episode of Batman: The Animated Series, even episodes where the villain was never shown again. The villain was fleshed out and given logical motivations in the course of one episode, with Batman as a mere device to resolve the plot. "Criminal Minds" does this in live-action. There is real character development present, even without arcs.
In this sense, "GI Joe" had a lot of character development (especially in season 2). But the storylines almost never carried over from one episode to the next, and sometimes the characters who got the most exposition were hardly even shown again.
It's a shame GI Joe got cut short .... say what you will about "GI Joe: The Movie", but there was an obvious arc planned for Lt. Falcon (al la Rodimus Prime), and it would've been great to see how he adjusted to filling his brother's boots. Unfortunately, DIC ruined our chances of ever seeing that happen.
I too am someone else who likes character development as a series progresses, but only in a serious vein. I mean, who really cares why the Brain wants to conquer the world? It's just fun to watch him try. But outside of comedy, what drives a character is usually the heart of the story.
Something I just thought of, though. My friend and I have been making our way through my DVDs of "Batman: the Animated Series." And considering when it came out, I was wondering if one might consider it a missing link as far as bridging the gap between the glorified toy commercial cartoons of the 1980s and the character-driven story cartoons of the 1990s such as "Exosquad" and "Gargoyles." I mean, there are certain episodes that are definitely meant to be watched in a certain order (since we see Harvey Dent early on in the series before he becomes Two-Face), but at the same time, there isn't what I would call an overall cohesive arc that permeates the series as a whole.
Early on, we see what motivates some of the villains (such as why Edward Nygma became the Riddler, or why Dent started committing crimes as Two-Face), but in later episodes, what initially drives them is forgotten and they're just pulling off the caper of the week. But the overall visual style of it was definitely more mature than a lot of what came before it, and there were definitely a lot of moments that really portrayed the frailty of some of the characters (including an excellent episode written by Michael Reaves where James Gordon is mortally wounded in the line of duty).
I don't know, it's something that just came into my head.
Something I just thought of, though. My friend and I have been making our way through my DVDs of "Batman: the Animated Series." And considering when it came out, I was wondering if one might consider it a missing link as far as bridging the gap between the glorified toy commercial cartoons of the 1980s and the character-driven story cartoons of the 1990s such as "Exosquad" and "Gargoyles." I mean, there are certain episodes that are definitely meant to be watched in a certain order (since we see Harvey Dent early on in the series before he becomes Two-Face), but at the same time, there isn't what I would call an overall cohesive arc that permeates the series as a whole.
Early on, we see what motivates some of the villains (such as why Edward Nygma became the Riddler, or why Dent started committing crimes as Two-Face), but in later episodes, what initially drives them is forgotten and they're just pulling off the caper of the week. But the overall visual style of it was definitely more mature than a lot of what came before it, and there were definitely a lot of moments that really portrayed the frailty of some of the characters (including an excellent episode written by Michael Reaves where James Gordon is mortally wounded in the line of duty).
I don't know, it's something that just came into my head.
[email protected]
New member
Well, in American Dragon Jake matured a lot with the Rose situation - including being more concerned for her safety than his own, going to great measures to set her free and finally realizing that her freedom did not include him (and accepting it) proved a great deal of character development in my mind.
brianzubek
New member
To be fair that was the nature of the show. Even the guys in charge admitted that they had "continuity by accident". Characters doing wild and weird stuff they'd never do in a pervious episode because of a joke is perfectly in keeping with the show.
Plus we never got too much backstory previously on Shego and before Go Team Go we didn't know she was from a family of superheroes and that her powers weren't part of her outfit. Her past and personal life before being a villain is a fairly big blank slate that could be filled with anything.
Personally I really hate it when they have character development and it's clear that the character is different at the end of the episode yet in an episode after it the character has reverted back and lost the development. i.e. Ron's fear of monkey's in Kim Possible where they had two separate episodes showing him getting over it yet it was forgotten the next time he saw a monkey and ran for his life.
Plus we never got too much backstory previously on Shego and before Go Team Go we didn't know she was from a family of superheroes and that her powers weren't part of her outfit. Her past and personal life before being a villain is a fairly big blank slate that could be filled with anything.
Personally I really hate it when they have character development and it's clear that the character is different at the end of the episode yet in an episode after it the character has reverted back and lost the development. i.e. Ron's fear of monkey's in Kim Possible where they had two separate episodes showing him getting over it yet it was forgotten the next time he saw a monkey and ran for his life.
Helena Isabella
New member
Superhero comics aren't exactly a good place to look for character development or continuity.
Fluro_Punk
New member
Manga isn't exactly a good place for originality and supposedly "original" characters and stories
and I even have an Ed Liu quote
Conventional wisdom among the comic book crowd is that continuity is bad because it inhibits accessibility and locks out new fans. Like many bits of conventional wisdom, this is wrong: it's only bad continuity that inhibits accessibility and locks out new fans. Good continuity makes you curious, and compels you to seek out the backstory to fully appreciate what's going on -Ed Liu ,rabroad
and Superhero Comics are argued inaccessible for the FACT they have continuity and very long character developments and story developments, get your facts straight
and I even have an Ed Liu quote
Conventional wisdom among the comic book crowd is that continuity is bad because it inhibits accessibility and locks out new fans. Like many bits of conventional wisdom, this is wrong: it's only bad continuity that inhibits accessibility and locks out new fans. Good continuity makes you curious, and compels you to seek out the backstory to fully appreciate what's going on -Ed Liu ,rabroad
and Superhero Comics are argued inaccessible for the FACT they have continuity and very long character developments and story developments, get your facts straight
Ritsuka Aoyagi
New member
Honestly, I believe the best way to approach this question is in the form of another question.
What's the difference between a simple standalone show that's of good quality, and a simple standalone show that's deemed bad? I mean from a surface standpoint I suppose it is easy to see simplicity as laziness and sometimes it's the case. So to rephrase what I asked, when is the show's simplicity not lazy?
What's the difference between a simple standalone show that's of good quality, and a simple standalone show that's deemed bad? I mean from a surface standpoint I suppose it is easy to see simplicity as laziness and sometimes it's the case. So to rephrase what I asked, when is the show's simplicity not lazy?
Well Antiyonder I never excepted a good answer out of Marinite to begin with, just pointing out a few more facts and see what answers I get
to answer your question standalone series act more like mini movies, I mean if a show never got past the pilot episode it'd make a interesting mini movie, It's not about being lazy, It's about working with just a story concept to a full extent,
to answer your question standalone series act more like mini movies, I mean if a show never got past the pilot episode it'd make a interesting mini movie, It's not about being lazy, It's about working with just a story concept to a full extent,
NeedxYouxHere
New member
What does manga or originality have to do with continuity?
Why not say how you feel rather than posting things other people say? You should always value your own opinion more than another's.
Why not say how you feel rather than posting things other people say? You should always value your own opinion more than another's.
gregwhatshisname
New member
Super hero comics done right tend to have continuity and a psuedo-development of the character. Characters can have short-term development as suited to the needs of the story, but that development is minor and "around the edges" in all but the most significant of story-arcs. The biggest device in service of this is the fluid "sliding scale" timeline, Comics (and the cartoons that emulate them) exist in a sort of "eternal now" where development occurs over the course of a few eps but rarely leads to life changing, significant upheavals in the established character status quo.
Sweetheart6262
New member
alot considering you keep mentioning it on the other boards how PERFECT they are at that regard
Well that hasn't worked so far for everyone else, besides I can find people who can phrase it better than me,who says my quotes and I DON"T share the same opinion, but I guess you can say I don't want to give my full opinion,again I don't except a good answer out of you, I just want to see what you say and so far you're doing that, but I also answered antiyonder's question which means I already gave my opinion
Well that hasn't worked so far for everyone else, besides I can find people who can phrase it better than me,who says my quotes and I DON"T share the same opinion, but I guess you can say I don't want to give my full opinion,again I don't except a good answer out of you, I just want to see what you say and so far you're doing that, but I also answered antiyonder's question which means I already gave my opinion
Chris_cafc
New member
Mh-mm-mh! I looove the smell of incoming flame wars on the morning
!
Or night.:sad:
Just to ad a few coals before the thread closes, anime have character development. Just that it's mostly so obvious it's not worth watching.
Most animes to day anyway. Though I'm still watching One peice sometimes. Even though it drags out the fighting scenes into something boring.
Aaaand.... Claymore still got me hooked.... what
? Don't look at me like that!
It's a cool manga series. A bit repetive(duh).. yes but... I want to see how that manga ends! I want to see what happens to Clair and that Riku-guy-thing .
! Or night.:sad:
Just to ad a few coals before the thread closes, anime have character development. Just that it's mostly so obvious it's not worth watching.
Most animes to day anyway. Though I'm still watching One peice sometimes. Even though it drags out the fighting scenes into something boring.
Aaaand.... Claymore still got me hooked.... what
? Don't look at me like that!It's a cool manga series. A bit repetive(duh).. yes but... I want to see how that manga ends! I want to see what happens to Clair and that Riku-guy-thing .
Nicole Marie<3
New member
agreed at least anime today, It just always seems like people are just trying to kill time by watching really long serials,movies and video games rather than looking for actually story quality I've seen some horrible anime and movies but it did pass the time by as long as it's digestble and you can connect the dots it gives continuity and... can entertain,be comforting and can lack surprises which could be good thing to some
(though Marinite is a fan of Seikon no qwaser and that show has no class )
Also I'm not trying to start a flame war I just hate it when there's a tone on the forums and I'm trying to defend my stance
(though Marinite is a fan of Seikon no qwaser and that show has no class )
Also I'm not trying to start a flame war I just hate it when there's a tone on the forums and I'm trying to defend my stance